Politics

Tech workers lean left, but their companies' PACs play both sides

Aiming to stay neutral, tech companies send their political dollars to Democrats and Republicans equally.

An image of checkbooks

The coffers of tech company PACs are filled almost entirely by staffers, who can opt to direct a portion of their paycheck to their company's PACs each year.

Image: Bortonia via Getty Images

Tech workers deserve their reputation as left-leaning: Employees at the largest tech companies routinely send more of their earnings to Democratic candidates than to Republican ones.

But their employers' political action committees support a markedly different and neatly bipartisan group of candidates. A review of all political contributions in 2019 from the PACs of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft suggests the companies make a deliberate effort to divide their dollars across red and blue lines. The source of those company's PAC funds? The very same staffers who support progressive candidates.

Considering the sizes of their businesses, tech companies' political spending is relatively small: Amazon spent $1.2 million, with Google close behind at slightly over $1 million. (Those companies reported profit of $11.6 billion and $34.3 billion, respectively, for 2019.) Microsoft spent about $940,000, with Facebook just over $300,000. Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook divided their dollars precisely between the two major political parties, while Google's PAC directed 56% of its money to Republicans and 44% to Democrats.

Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.

Notably missing from this list is Apple. Last year its employees contributed about $740,000 to political candidates, 97% of which went to Democrats. But unlike its peers, the company doesn't have a PAC; last year Tim Cook told an audience he doesn't believe PACs should exist. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

The coffers of tech company PACs are filled almost entirely by staffers, who can opt to direct a portion of their paycheck to their company's PACs. Employees of Google, for example, primarily gave to the company PAC through biweekly payroll deductions. Federal Election Commission guidelines dictate that individuals can give up to $5,000 per election to a political action committee, and $2,800 to a candidate committee. In turn, those PACs can donate up to $5,000 to individual politicians' primary and general political campaigns and up to $15,000 to party committees. How that money gets donated is typically the decision of people on the public policy teams of the given companies.

Companies' PAC spending is dwarfed by that of their traditional lobbying efforts; according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Amazon ranked No. 9 for corporate lobbying spending, with an outlay of $16.8 million; Facebook was right behind, shelling out $16.7 million last year.

Among tech companies, Amazon's PAC gave the most to political campaigns last year. According to data from the U.S. Federal Election Commission, the e-commerce giant divided its corporate dollars evenly, with 50% going to Democrats and 49% going to Republicans (the remainder went to a nonpartisan PAC). So far, in the 2020 election cycle, the company hasn't supported any presidential candidates, instead favoring Congressional races. Amazon gave $15,000 to each party's Senate and Congressional fundraising committees, as did Google, Facebook and Microsoft. Among the politicians receiving the most from Amazon were Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sen. John Reed, D-Del.

Meanwhile, when Amazon employees spent their own money to support politicians in 2019, 79% of their money went to Democrats, with Bernie Sanders claiming the largest slice of the pie. Workers also gave more than $200,000 to Amazon's PAC last year. Jeff Bezos gave the most he could, $5,000, to both Amazon's PAC and the PAC for his space exploration company Blue Origin.

Like Amazon's, Facebook's PAC also split its funds across the aisle. The most the company PAC gave to individual campaigns was $5,000. Legislators receiving that amount include Democrats Dick Durbin, Chris Coons, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, and Republicans John Cornyn, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise. Facebook says when considering which candidates to support, it looks at the company's presence in the candidate's district or state, the person's "general alignment with Facebook's public policy views and business interests," the interests of employees and investors, and political balance, among other factors. But, as with other tech companies, employees largely supported Democrats.

As with all these company PACs, Facebook's was supported almost entirely by employees, including Mark Zuckerberg, who gave $5,000. Some people in Facebook's orbit, who are not current employees, also donated, such as Priscilla Chan, Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel. Sheryl Sandberg matched her boss' donation, but she also spent another nearly $90,000 supporting female Democratic candidates for Congress and a superPAC affiliated with Emily's List, a left-leaning group focused on getting women to vote and run for office.

As for Google, only four people who don't work at the company contributed to its PAC last year, and most of those are married to people who do. They include Larry Page's wife, Lucinda Southworth; the wife of Google chief economist Hal Varian; and the wife of Android co-founder Rich Miner. Last year the company collected more than $1 million for the Google NetPAC and directed 56% of those funds to Republicans. Overseen by a bipartisan group of Google staffers, the PAC considers candidates' and organizations' political stances as well as their commitment to an open internet, among other issues. Parent-company Alphabet does not have a separate PAC. Google's Sundar Pichai and Larry Page both tithed to the company PAC, to the tune of $2,000 and $5,000, respectively, but co-founder Sergey Brin did not. None of those executives contributed directly to candidates.

Google funneled the most money to candidates including Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, Rep. Drew Ferguson, R-Ga., Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Google did not respond to a request for comment.

When spending their own money, again, Google's employees supported a distinctly different set of candidates, with 95% of that money going to Democrats. (In 2016, employees of Google sent more money to Hillary Clinton than workers at any other company, and staffers also supported blue candidates in 2018.) For calendar year 2019, their top presidential pick was Elizabeth Warren (though, as Recode reported, the top candidate in the fourth quarter of 2019 was Bernie Sanders).

Why are tech companies parcelling out their money in such a precisely bipartisan manner? Chalk it up to concerns about being accused of political bias, says Daniel Kreiss, principal researcher at the UNC Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life in Chapel Hill. "Facebook and Google control much of the distribution channels when it comes to political speech; their content-moderation policies impact what politicians say, and what they can pay to say," said Kreiss, who researches how technology companies shape public debate and influence electoral processes. "They're exceptionally vulnerable to claims of political bias, and I think that's why they go above and beyond to be sure they're distributing their money evenly."

The companies also want to ensure their actions aren't contrary to employee values, Kreiss said, something high-tech workers are increasingly demanding. "I think that's why engineers get involved, not just for a paycheck but for a chance to make the world a better place. So companies are trying to make sure they're fair arbiters, but also aren't doing things that are contrary to employee values. One way to do this is to say, 'we're nonpartisan; we contribute equally.'"

Last summer Microsoft employees complained that some of the candidates supported by the company's PAC held values contrary to those of the company and began encouraging staffers to stop contributing. In response, Microsoft took the unusual step of pausing PAC spending, according to a leaked internal memo — making almost no investments in the third quarter of 2019. Ultimately, the company spent 35% less on political contributions in 2019 than it had the year prior. The PAC's top recipient last year was the reelection campaign of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, followed by Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons and Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell.

"Given the breadth of our policy agenda, it's unlikely we'll agree with any official on every issue, but we've learned that engagement — even when individuals hold different positions — is an essential part of achieving progress," a Microsoft spokesperson told Protocol. The PAC's priorities include reducing carbon emissions, increasing access to broadband, and protecting customers' privacy. Last year Microsoft allocated 49% of its campaign donations to Republicans, but as with the other big tech companies, staffers favored Democrats, giving them about three-quarters of their contributions.

With the exception of Microsoft, tech company PAC spending has grown substantially in the past 10 years; Amazon's PAC spending has increased 14-fold in the last 10 years, while Google's spending has more than quintupled. Despite these increases, Silicon Valley company PACs don't rank in the top sources of businesses' PAC spending, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Industrial manufacturer Honeywell and the National Beer Wholesalers Association claim the top two spots, followed closely by AT&T and Comcast.

Soon, the FEC will release data for donations from PACs and individuals for the month of January 2020. We'll report on that data as it comes out.

LA is a growing tech hub. But not everyone may fit.

LA has a housing crisis similar to Silicon Valley’s. And single-family-zoning laws are mostly to blame.

As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers, whose high salaries put them at an advantage in both LA's renting and buying markets.

Photo: Nat Rubio-Licht/Protocol

LA’s tech scene is on the rise. The number of unicorn companies in Los Angeles is growing, and the city has become the third-largest startup ecosystem nationally behind the Bay Area and New York with more than 4,000 VC-backed startups in industries ranging from aerospace to creators. As the number of tech companies in the region grows, so does the number of tech workers. The city is quickly becoming more and more like Silicon Valley — a new startup and a dozen tech workers on every corner and companies like Google, Netflix, and Twitter setting up offices there.

But with growth comes growing pains. Los Angeles, especially the burgeoning Silicon Beach area — which includes Santa Monica, Venice, and Marina del Rey — shares something in common with its namesake Silicon Valley: a severe lack of housing.

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

While there remains debate among economists about whether we are officially in a full-blown recession, the signs are certainly there. Like most executives right now, the outlook concerns me.

In any case, businesses aren’t waiting for the official pronouncement. They’re already bracing for impact as U.S. inflation and interest rates soar. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — the highest increase since November 1981 — and the Federal Reserve is targeting an interest rate of 3% by the end of this year.

Keep Reading Show less
Nancy Sansom

Nancy Sansom is the Chief Marketing Officer for Versapay, the leader in Collaborative AR. In this role, she leads marketing, demand generation, product marketing, partner marketing, events, brand, content marketing and communications. She has more than 20 years of experience running successful product and marketing organizations in high-growth software companies focused on HCM and financial technology. Prior to joining Versapay, Nancy served on the senior leadership teams at PlanSource, Benefitfocus and PeopleMatter.

Policy

SFPD can now surveil a private camera network funded by Ripple chair

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a policy that the ACLU and EFF argue will further criminalize marginalized groups.

SFPD will be able to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks in certain circumstances.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ripple chairman and co-founder Chris Larsen has been funding a network of security cameras throughout San Francisco for a decade. Now, the city has given its police department the green light to monitor the feeds from those cameras — and any other private surveillance devices in the city — in real time, whether or not a crime has been committed.

This week, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved a controversial plan to allow SFPD to temporarily tap into private surveillance networks during life-threatening emergencies, large events, and in the course of criminal investigations, including investigations of misdemeanors. The decision came despite fervent opposition from groups, including the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which say the police department’s new authority will be misused against protesters and marginalized groups in a city that has been a bastion for both.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Enterprise

These two AWS vets think they can finally solve enterprise blockchain

Vendia, founded by Tim Wagner and Shruthi Rao, wants to help companies build real-time, decentralized data applications. Its product allows enterprises to more easily share code and data across clouds, regions, companies, accounts, and technology stacks.

“We have this thesis here: Cloud was always the missing ingredient in blockchain, and Vendia added it in,” Wagner (right) told Protocol of his and Shruthi Rao's company.

Photo: Vendia

The promise of an enterprise blockchain was not lost on CIOs — the idea that a database or an API could keep corporate data consistent with their business partners, be it their upstream supply chains, downstream logistics, or financial partners.

But while it was one of the most anticipated and hyped technologies in recent memory, blockchain also has been one of the most failed technologies in terms of enterprise pilots and implementations, according to Vendia CEO Tim Wagner.

Keep Reading Show less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Fintech

Kraken's CEO got tired of being in finance

Jesse Powell tells Protocol the bureaucratic obligations of running a financial services business contributed to his decision to step back from his role as CEO of one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges.

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Kraken is going through a major leadership change after what has been a tough year for the crypto powerhouse, and for departing CEO Jesse Powell.

The crypto market is still struggling to recover from a major crash, although Kraken appears to have navigated the crisis better than other rivals. Despite his exchange’s apparent success, Powell found himself in the hot seat over allegations published in The New York Times that he made insensitive comments on gender and race that sparked heated conversations within the company.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Latest Stories
Bulletins